But you can’t say you believe or disbelieve a documented fact. Consider this statement by Scott Brown, republican nominee for the vacant Massachusetts US Senate seat.

Marriage
I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. States should be free to make their own laws in this area, so long as they reflect the people’s will as expressed through them directly, or as expressed through their elected representatives.

Guess what, Scott? If you are implicitly saying that you disbelieve that marriage is between two people of the same sex, you believe a lie. Because I’m married to a wonderful guy. There are people all over the globe whose spouses are the same sex they are. I really don’t give a flying fart what you believe.

Isn’t it funny how he avoids using the word “gay” or even “same-sex?” His implicit criticism of the judicial rule that denying same-sex partners marriage licenses is unconstitutional (as opposed to putting minority rights to a majority legislative vote) is really hateful too. Scott, you don’t get to reinterpret what our laws say — an accusation leveled at gay marriage supports frequently.

Maybe you’ve seen this, but a Purdue library science professor and government documents librarian has blogged An Economic Case Against Homosexuality. Yes, it’s as ludicrous as it sounds. I’m leaving this off my professional blog, as it has little to do with librarianship, other than the fact that Professor Bert Chapman displays no traits of a librarian, despite his blog title “Conservative Librarian.”

You’ll see a comment by me… two, if they approve my last one. Not that I doubt it’s rationality, but it’s close to the 2,000 character limit they put on comments, so it may be held in moderation. Or then again, it may have been flushed down the toilet. It’s in response to a commenter named Adriana who takes me to task for bringing up the taboo of the “facts” Prof. Chapman’s economic publication lacks.

Here is my follow up, in case they don’t publish it:

Adriana,

The facts Prof. Chapman presents, but does not cite are:

1. Not only does he not cite his source of data, but Prof. Chapman attributes US Government expenditures on AIDS to a support of what he deems “a homosexual lifestyle.” Though he recognizes that the disease is spread by many means, he still presents it as a moral issue. But regardless, a librarian must state where his numbers come from and what “expenditures on this disease” encompass.

2. He cites as fact that behavior he deems immoral taints our blood supply without support of fact.

3. Chapman also claims that rape of male inmates by fellow males is a drain on taxpayer dollars. Does he cite how many of the offenders are homosexual? It may seem unthinkable to you, but heterosexual males rape men. I see no citations to established facts to support his claims that homosexual men are draining US tax dollars in this way.

4. At long last, the educated librarian cites an external work, “Do Domestic Partner Benefits Make Good Economic Sense?” by The Corporate Resource Center. He claims that it is available on a web site, but does not provide a URL. He does not even qualify where this center is or what affiliation it has, if any, to a larger organization. I challenge anyone to find this work available on the web. For this fraud alone, Prof. Chapman should be censured, at the very least.

5. Finally, the learned professor closes with a long list of ways that heterosexual entitlements may be diminished by the acknowledgment of same-sex relationships. There are no numbers given. There are no longitudinal studies cited. There is only the fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) tactics of a frightened man with no other defense. The last paragraph reminds me of the FUD tactics of white families in the 1960’s who would incite neighborhood hatred against black families moving in, in the name of “decreased property values.”

Update: I totally forgot to thank the dude who alerted me to this fiasco! Rob at wakingupnow.com is a really great blogger who has a fierce, but reasoned approach to civil action. Thank you, Rob. You set a good example.

Okay, so this has probably been proposed by someone else and launched and failed miserably. But what the hell? I am all about the fool-making.

Why don’t we start a social networking site all about making connections with people we can’t stand? No, really. You log on, search for “Sharon Krafts” and then tag her as a “genial co-worker on the other side of a labor dispute” or whatever. We can define many sorts of work relationships. Or love relationships. Or family relationships. But the idea is that we don’t like these people. And we can get explicit confirmation that they dislike us as well.

Well, I’m thrilled to report that the group that walked out of Mike Daisey’s show at the ART was from out-of-town. Haha, I know that really makes no difference at all, but I do find it somehow comforting.

Turns out they were a high school group — a choir from a public high school performing in Boston. It’s interesting that members of the group identify themselves as a Christian group when they were from a public school. And the walkout was not planned in advance, really.

Well, heck, just read the excellent summary by Playbill or read the long version on Daisey’s blog in which he details the follow-up phone call he had with the water-pouring vandal.

Make sure to read the part about it being a “security issue”. Sends chills down my spine.

Daniel MacIvor posted tonight about a bizarre happening at a performance of Mike Daisey’s critically-acclaimed monologue Invincible Summer. But it wasn’t till I read the story that I remembered they guy was performing in town at the American Repertory Theatre!

According to the performer himself:

Last night’s performance of INVINCIBLE SUMMER was disrupted when eighty seven members of a Christian group walked out of the show en masse, and chose to physically attack my work by pouring water on and destroying the original of the show outline.

Daisey had just finished a joke about hypothetically having sex with Paris Hilton when the exodus occurred. Apparently, the collective objection was to the language Daisey used. Note that Daisey performs his extemporaneous monologues from hand written notes, so this was not merely a non-violent (if disruptive) gesture. It was an aggressive, destructive act.

I am just flummoxed. What kind of an impact is this meant to make in Cambridge, of all places? And is it just me, or is all the strange Patriot Act, media-is-destroying-our-children, Janet-Jackson-has-breasts stuff turning the more judgmental of our society into self-righteous vigilantes?

Read more about this crazy event on the ART blog and Mike Daisey’s own blog. (Same text in both places.) Or just watch the insanity unfold before your eyes here…

I intend to secure tickets to, if not this show which runs through next weekend, Mike Daisey’s Monopoly, which runs the following week. Let me know if you want to go too.

Oh, my goodness, I just found the wonderful blog Irregular Times. And this post from last year made me nearly dissolve into a puddle of giggly goo. Thank you, God, for creating the Web so smart people can make fun of dumb people.